Response to Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust1

A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations

The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod
April 2012

Introduction
The 2010 Convention of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod (LCMS) adopted Resolution 305 directing That the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, in consultation with the
faculties of our seminaries, develop a thorough, biblical, and confessional analysis of and
response to Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust with particular attention to the concept of bound
conscience. (2010 Convention Proceedings, 117). This document is offered as the response
called for by the conventions resolution. Given the fact that Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust
(hereafter HSGT) was developed as the theological rationale for the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America (ELCA) to change its practice to allow for the liturgical blessing of same
gender couples and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the necessity of a careful and
critical response was recognized by the LCMS. The implications of the ELCAs actions for its
own internal life, its ecumenical partners throughout Christianity, and its connections with the
LCMS in recognized social ministry organizations and military chaplaincies are immense and far
reaching. It is hoped that this document will provide a basis for an evaluation of HSGT in
keeping with the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
1. Foundational and Methodological Considerations
Debates over sexuality, inherited from its predecessor bodies, have been present in the ELCA
from its inception. Christian Batalden Scharens Married in the Sight of God: Theology, Ethics
and Church Debates Over Homosexuality documents the broad contours of the debate even as
the author takes a strong partisan stance in advocating for a revised theology of marriage,
expanded to embrace same-gender unions.2 HSGT itself is the product of a nearly decade-long
process of study, deliberation, and debate. Clearly the ELCA was tilted toward change.
Numerous ELCA teaching theologians were speaking and writing on behalf of changes that
would be adopted in 2009 on the basis of HSGT. Paul Jersild, a professor of ethics at Lutheran
Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina, advanced the case against an
excessively physicalist approach to homosexuality, suggesting instead attention to the more
personal dimensions of a committed relationship.3 Jersilds book, Spirit Ethics: Scripture and the
Moral Life, provides a more detailed account of the approach to ethics which is realized in
HSGT. In his 2004 book, Many Members, Yet One Body, Craig Nessan of Wartburg Theological
Seminary argued that committed, same-gender relationships do not impact core doctrines and
1

This social teaching statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) was adopted by a twothirds vote (676-338) by the eleventh biennial Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA on August 19, 2009 at
Minneapolis, Minnesota. The statement can be found online at
http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/What%20We%20Believe/Social%20Issues/sexuality/Human%20Sexuality%20S
ocial%20Statement.pdf.
2
Christian Batalden Scharen, Married in the Sight of God: Theology, Ethics and Church Debates Over
Homosexuality (Landham: University Press of America, 2000).
3
Paul Jersild, Spirit Ethics: Scripture and the Moral Life (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 139.

should not impair church unity and mission.4 Even though it was advertised as representing both
sides of the debate, Faithful Conversations: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, edited by
James M. Childs, Jr., included only one essay that is reflective of the classical Lutheran position
on homosexuality.5
The brief introduction in HSGT begins with Jesus great love commandment in Matthew
22:36-40, understood by the document as his invitation to love God and our neighbor (HSGT,
1). It is the aim of HSGT to set the discussion of sexuality within the context of this twofold
command to love. From the standpoint of theological methodology, this starting point is
immediately problematic on a number of levels. A definition of love is perhaps assumed but not
given, thus leaving the way open for what might be called disembodied love, love
disconnected from the reality of created, bodily existence and without historical form. Starting
with the command to love God and the neighbor also avoids the Holy Scriptures own
understanding of sexuality as Gods gift instituted in the creation of our first parents and
distorted by their fall into sin.
HSGT claims to offer a distinctively Lutheran approach (HSGT, 1) grounded in a
Christological reading of Holy Scriptures and centered in justification by grace through faith,
with its corollary of vocation in the world for the neighbors sake. The application of this
hermeneutic in HSGT is uneven at best, however, often tending toward a reduction of ethical
considerations to variable options that are open to the Christian who lives by faith alone. The
language of Lutheranism has been disconnected from its historical origin in Scripture, Luther,
and the Lutheran Confessions. It has been rendered symbolic,6 so that it can be employed to
support conclusions previously drawn to advocate a particular agenda.
Several critical issues emerge that will become foundational for the remainder of HSGT. The
document is marked by an eschatological enthusiasm7 when it asserts
As Lutherans, understanding that Gods promised future is the transformation of the
whole creation, we believe that the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is engaged
4

Craig Nessan, Many Members Yet One Body: Committed Same-Gender Relationships and the Mission of the
Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004).
5
Faithful Conversations: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, edited by James M. Childs, Jr. (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003). Only the chapter by James Arne Nestingen, The Lutheran Reformation and Homosexual
Practice defends the traditional reading of the biblical evidence.
6
James Nestingen, in private correspondence, has described HSGTs approach to creeds and the Lutheran
Confessions as merely symbolic. This contrasts with the historic description of such works as symbols, a term
which indicated their full and continuing authority as standards for doctrine and practice.
7
As it emerged in the Reformation, enthusiasmliterally God-within-ismdisjoined Gods Spirit from Gods
Word incarnate in Christ and revealed in Holy Scripture. When this separation occurs, the future sets aside the past,
leaving it without value; the inspiration claimed by the individual or community devalues the inspiration of the
Word; the resurrection annuls the cross; the historical realities of life and death dissolve into mere concepts to be
arranged at will by theologians, bishops, or church assemblies. Eschatological enthusiasm here refers to the
tendency to make assertions about life in this present, fallen world as though the arrival of the new age of Gods
kingdom invalidates the created structures which govern created life and curb sin. While it is true that eschatology
(the doctrine of the last things) has a now and not yet character, this teaching does not mean that Gods creation is
restructured. Rather the Triune God has promised to restore His fallen creation to His original purpose. The
eschatological emphasis in HSGT is described here as enthusiasm in the theological sense of that word, namely
seeking the will of God in ones own imagination rather than His revealed will, in ones internal speculation rather
than in Gods external Word.

deeply and relationally in the continuing creation of the world. We anticipate and live out
the values of this promised future concretely in the present. It is therefore in the midst of
daily life in the world that we are given the vocational task of serving the neighbor.
(HSGT, 2.)
The language of this paragraph seems to echo ELCA theologian Ted Peters description of
Christian ethics as a proleptic ethic, which he describes as the evangelical emancipation of
human beings from legalistic oppression so that they may engage in the expression of co-creative
love. This love is said to produce new forms of human community marked by reconciliation.8
While the promise of a new heaven and new earth (see Isaiah 11:1-16, Isaiah 65: 17-25; II Peter
3:13) has always been embraced in Christian hope and confession, it would be wrong to suppose
that the the transformation of the whole creation includes the establishment of a new ethic that
is in conflict with Gods original creation instituted by His Word. The language of relationship,
so prominent in HSGT, becomes abstract and overrides categories of nature and history.9 The
future promised in Scripture, however, is not the sort of transformation that would render Gods
original creation obsolete, displacing His good design of humanity as male and female. It is
instead a restoration of His human creatures to live before Him in righteousness and holiness
forever.
HSGT is dependent on the vocabulary of trust. There is a curious turn away from the language
of fidelity, so prominent in classical Lutheran treatments of marriage, to the vocabulary of trust.
So the document claims Central to our vocation, in relation to human sexuality, is the building
and protection of trust in relationships (HSGT, 2). These relationships remain undefined in
terms of the gender or the number of the participants. This nebulous language is unsuited for a
concrete discussion of sexual ethics.
Attempting to orient the discussion of the ethics of sexuality by the centrality of justification by
grace through faith, three of the Reformation solas are invoked: solus Christus, sola gratia, and
sola fide. It is noteworthy that sola scriptura is not mentioned. In fact, the document avoids any
exegetical engagement with specific biblical texts that speak to sexual behavior. Instead the
document speaks vaguely of the Scriptures as the living Word (HSGT, 2) asserting that
Scripture is to be interpreted through the lens of Christs death and resurrection for the salvation
of all (HSGT, 2) but without giving any indication as to how this hermeneutic might actually
function in regard to a Christian ethic of sexuality.

This language has become popular in the ELCA. See Ted Peters, GodThe Worlds Future: Systematic Theology
for a Postmodern Era (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 357-377. Having been freed from the tyranny of the law
and having received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians can develop an ethic that seeks to give co-creative
expression to the power of love (357). On the language of human participation in the continuing creation, i.e.
human beings as co-creators, see Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993). Also see Jrgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, translated by Margaret
Kohl (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 176-1996. Moltmanns thought seems to inform this conceptualization.
9
Here see Christian Batalden Scharen, Gay Christians: Symbols of Gods New Creation, The Lutheran (March
2003), 22-23. Scharten writes Could God be speaking a new word to the church, in effect saying that gay
Christians, through their efforts to live in faithful covenant partnerships, witness to Gods covenantal purposes for
sexuality and marriage? In so doing, God would be claiming them as symbols among us of the new creation (23).

According to HSGT, Scripture alone is not sufficient for adjudicating ethical questions which
emerge in regard to sexuality. It is asserted that we look to the Scriptures and Lutheran
Confessions, but also to the social and physical sciences, and to human reason, mercy, and
compassion (HSGT, 14) in seeking to determine a moral path. The document does not at all
reflect the strong assertion of the Formula of Concord that the prophetic and apostolic writings of
the Old and New Testaments alone are the only rule and guiding principle according to which
all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged.10 Set alongside other authorities and
put in dialogue with other disciplines, the Holy Scripture is no longer seen as normative for a
sexual ethic. Failing to distinguish between the Scriptures magisterial authority for all matters of
faith and life in the church, the domains of psychological and social sciences are assumed by
HSGT to function in something other than a ministerial manner. It is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that sources other than Holy Scripture are normative for the ethic promoted by
HSGT.11 While HSGT often calls for the church to be attentive to contemporary scientific
studies that might impact Christian moral deliberation, it fails to provide any critical hermeneutic
for the analysis of the data yielded from these studies.12
The observation of Gerhard Forde is to the point:
The attempt to marshal so-called scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is an
orientation and not a choice and to call Pauls indictment into question on this score, is, it
seems to me, not a proper or careful way to argue. In the first place, the evidence is still
eminently doubtable. There is no agreement in the scientific community, and even if
there were, most true scientists would be more modest. But in the second place it hardly
seems appropriate for those who seek to honor the normative character of Scripture to
call it into question on such a slim basis.13
Justification by grace through faith alone is essential for a Lutheran ethic, but it can never be
used as a principle that negates ethical discernment. The doctrine is misused when it is taken as a
justification for sin rather than the justification of the sinner. Lacking Luthers clarity that Gods
forensic work of justification entails death to the old man and the bringing forth of the new man
10

Formula of Concord, Epitome 1, 1 in The Book of Concord, edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert
(hereafter KW followed by page number) (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 486.
11
Here see Craig Nessan, Three Theses on the Theological Discussion of Homosexuality in the Global Lutheran
Community Currents in Theology and Mission (June 2010): 191-197. Writing in an attempt to address the negative
reaction from Lutheran World Federation churches in the global south to the move of the ELCA to endorse the
blessing of same-gender couples and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, Nessan attempts to minimize the
controversy by arguing that [t]he discussion of homosexuality is about matters of biblical interpretation, not
biblical authority (193) and as long as there is agreement in the right preaching of the gospel (194) matters of
sexuality are penultimate. He further argues that because [m]arriage is a worldly thing whose structure is
conditioned by history, culture, and context and whose value is to be measured by how it contributes to the common
good (196) its configuration is open to readjustment and need not be the same from place to place.
12
Here see Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, The Use, Misuse, and Abuse of Science in the Ecclesiastical
Homosexuality Debates (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000); Also see Stanton L. Jones, Same Sex
Science First Things (February 2012), 27-33.
13
Gerhard Forde, Human Sexuality and Romans, Chapter One in The Preached God: Proclamation in Word and
Sacrament, edited by Mark C. Mattes and Steven D. Paulson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 213. Also note the
comment of Oliver ODonovan that Light and lazy talk about development and new insights may often do no
more than announce a change of fashion. See Homosexuality in the Church: Can There be a Fruitful Theological
Debate? in The Way Forward: Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church, edited by Timothy Bradshaw
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2003), 23.

who walks before God in righteousness and holiness, HSGT diminishes the dynamic of Lutheran
teaching, providing a way for a sexual ethic that is elastic and ultimately undefined. Faith in
Christ becomes permission for the Christian to determine his or her course of action when it
comes to a sexual ethic within the nebulous bounds of self-designated love for the neighbor.
2. The Category of Paradox in Relation to Christian Freedom
Drawing on Luthers 1520 treatise, The Freedom of the Christian, HSGT seeks to develop a
paradoxical understanding of sexuality as marked both by Gods grace and human sinfulness:
Lutheran theology prepares us precisely to hold in creative tension the paradoxes and
complexities of the human situation. This is also the case with regard to human sexuality. God
has created human beings as part of the whole creation and with the intention that we live
actively in the world (Romans 12-13; Ephesians 5-6) (HSGT, 3).
The reading of The Freedom of the Christian in HSGT is selective at best and at worst deceptive.
While HSGT uses fragmented slogans from Luthers treatise, it fails to grasp the Reformers
argument and instead makes a misapplication of the argument in matters of sexual ethics.
Isolating Luthers well-known paradox that a Christian is a perfectly free lord of all while at the
same time a perfectly dutiful servant of all from the full scope of the Reformers argument,
HSGT fails to take into account his distinction of the inner person from the outer person.
The inner person or the new man is the spiritual nature of the believer. The outer person or the
old man is his sinful, fleshly nature. Luther bases this distinction on 2 Corinthians 4:16 and
Galatians 5:17. The souls freedom is not an external liberty (lack of political captivity, bodily
illness, poverty and the like) but an endowment of the Gospel. This is the one thing and one
thing alone that leads to Christian life, righteousness, and freedom.14
The freedom of the Gospel for Luther is not a bodily freedom from the demands of the law
which remain in creation. The Christian freed from the condemnation of the law in conscience is
not evacuated from creation but is enlivened to serve the neighbor within the structures which
God has established and instituted within the world. Works are not necessary for salvation but
they are necessary for the service of the neighbor. Hence Luther returns to the controlling
paradox of the tract: Insofar as a Christian is free, no works are necessary. Insofar as a Christian
is a servant, all kinds of works are done.15
The inner person is free, but because we also live in this world the outer person must remain
under discipline so that the body is conformed to the Spirit and does not undermine the faith of
the inner person. These bodily disciplines do not limit faiths freedom but in fact serve to guard
that freedom so that the Christian does not become a slave to sin and thus forfeit the freedom in
Christ. Here Luther cites Romans 7:22-23, 1 Corinthians 9:27, and Galatians 5:24.
It is in the body that the Christian submits to serve the neighbor in love:
We must also understand that these works serve the purpose of disciplining the body and
purifying it of all evil desires. The focus should be on these desires and the best means of
14

Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, translated with an introduction by Mark Tranvik (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2008), 52.
15
Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, 71.

purging them. Since by faith the soul is made pure and enabled to love God, it wants all
thingsthe body in particularto join in loving and praising God. Thus we cannot be idle.
The needs of the body compel us to do many good works in order to bring it under
control. Nevertheless, it must always be kept in mind that these works do not justify a
person before God. Rather, by yielding wholly to God, one does these works out of a
spirit of spontaneous love, seeking nothing other than to serve God and yield to him in all
earthly labors.16
Luther says we should consider the works of the Christian as we would those of Adam in
paradise before the fall into sin. Adams work was instituted by God (Genesis 2:15) and was
done to please God, not to obtain righteousness. HSGT is silent on these aspects of The Freedom
of a Christian. Slogans are extracted from Luthers treatise to promote an emancipation from the
very orders God has set in place to protect and preserve human life.
3. The Doctrine of Creation
Luthers confession of the First Article embraces the personal (has made me), the
cosmic/universal (and all creatures), the communal (He also gives mehouse and home, wife
and children, land, animals and all that I have), the providential (He defends me against all
danger and guards and protects me from all evil), and the doxological (For all this it is my duty
to thank and praise, serve and obey Him).17 By way of contrast, HSGT describes creation with
vague and imprecise language repeatedly resorting to the rhetoric of relationship.18 Thus we are
told: Both narratives of Gods creative activity in the book of Genesis (Genesis 1 and 2) reveal
Gods goodness and desire for a close relationship with human beings as integral to the ongoing
handiwork of creation (HSGT, 4). Further the document makes the claim: As a mark of
personal confidence, the Creator even entrusts to human beings the task of naming and tending
the inhabitants of the earth God so clearly loves. The tender love and goodness of Gods creative
activity includes sexuality and gendered bodies (Genesis 2:23-25) (HSGT, 5). The theological
significance of sexuality and gendered bodies is left undefined, without connection to the
Creators intention in creating humanity as male and female.19
The use of relational terminology is imprecise and deceptive in HSGT. Surely all human beings
are set in a relationship with their Creator by virtue of their being, in fact, creatures made by
God, preserved by Him, and accountable to Him. The human being is in a relationship with God;
this relationship is never a matter of neutrality since it is either of wrath or of grace.20 Even more
problematic is the assertion that God trusts human beings and that human beings violate
16

Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, 73.

Luthers Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1991 [2005]), 15-16).
18
Relationship in HSGT is considered one-sidedly, almost exclusively on the horizontal levelhuman to human.
Certainly the importance of human relationships is never to be denied or minimized, least of all by confessional
Lutheran theology. However, HSGTs failure to consider the importance of the vertical relationship we human
creatures have with our Creator leaves human relationships morally vacuous. Only a right relationship with God
enables a full and godly understanding of human relationships.
19
For a scriptural discussion of the theological significance of humanity created as male and female, see The
Creators Tapestry: Scriptural Perspectives on Man-Woman Relationship (Saint Louis: Commission Theology and
Church Relations, 2009), 7-15.
20
Luther does not know of a neutral sphere beyond wrath and grace, says Oswald Bayer, Creation as History
in The Gift of Grace: The Future of Lutheran Theology, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen et al (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2005), 258.
17

Gods trust (HSGT, 5). These expressions are without biblical support and actually convey a
cozy and natural partnership between God and humanity rather than the Scriptural distinction
between Creator and creature. Sin is then seen in HSGT as a resistance of identity and not a
fundamental mistrust of the Creator. There is no hint in HSGT that human beings are born with
sin, that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence21 to use the
language of Article II of the Augsburg Confession.
The treatment of creation in HSGT is fragmentary and lacking in coherence. The law is affirmed
as ordering and preserving the world and exposing human sin. Yet HSGT never really
demonstrates how the law accomplishes these tasks. There is nothing in HSGT that would
suggest anything resembling the orders of creation22 as creational structures that remain intact
even though they might not be recognized by those whose perception is blinded by sin. Note 11
in HSGT explains the avoidance of the vocabulary of orders of creation as this form is linked
to a static notion of creation and instead suggests the language of social structures as this term
is less technical and more suggestive of Gods ongoing creative activity to shape and reshape
social structures for human protection and good(HSGT, 39-40). Yet social structures are not
synonymous with orders of creation, since social structures are sociologically rather than
theologically defined.
HSGT invokes a vision of existence evoked by the eschatological expectation of a transformed
creation which renders relative the place of Gods law in governing the behavior of mankind.
The new creature now transcends the structures and boundaries given in creation to participate in
a world that is made flexible for a variety of expressions determined by the self. There is, in fact,
something Gnostic-like here in the suggestion that human beings might be liberated from
physiological boundaries imposed by bodies which are either male or female.23
4. Sexuality and Vocation
The section, Our vocation to serve the neighbor (HSGT, 8) begins with the recognition that
we do not live in private worlds but quickly slips into a discussion of individualistic actions. It
speaks of complex and varied situations people have relative to sexuality: being in relationships,
being single, being a friend, living in a young or aging body, being male or female, being young
or old, or having different sexual orientations and gender identities (HSGT, 9).24 Privacy has
become a key component in current moral discourse as it is widely assumed that within the
21

Augsburg Confession II: 1, KW 38-39.

For a discussion of how a rejection of the orders of creation is problematic not only for ethics but also for
soteriology, see Armin Wenz, Natural Law and the Orders of Creation in Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal,
edited by Robert Baker (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2011), 79-95. On the necessity of the orders of
creation for the biblical understanding of marriage, see Nathan Yoder, The Order of Marriage and the Lord of the
Order, Lutheran Forum (Summer 2009): 42-45.
23
Here see Philip J. Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). Gnosticism is an
ancient philosophical system that held to the existence of a secret knowledge (gnosis) that would provide the
initiated person access to reality apart from bodily existence. Lee argues that the so-called Gay Rights movement is
a modern form of Gnosticism in that it seeks to define sexuality apart from something as mundane as biology. Lee
concludes In short, there are important forces within liberal American Protestantism that would like to escape the
concerns of the physical body, of sexuality. Ironically, this movement reaches its culmination in the denial of the
importance of the family, procreation and, therefore, of human life itself (139).
24
Note the inherently Gnostic formulation of living in a body, as if there is another way of living that is outside or
apart from a body. Cf. footnote 23 above.
22

seclusion of consensual arrangements, individuals may act without restraint if these activities do
not interfere with others in their own self-enclosed lives. HSGT misses the opportunity to
critique this individualism that is so evident in discussions of sexuality.
Morally, virtually all that the document can affirm is that In whatever the situation, all people
are called to build trust in relationships and in the community (HSGT, 9). This invites a
situational ethic that fails to address life lived in the body before both God and the neighbor.
Without examination or critique the psychological/political language of sexual orientation and
gender identity is adopted, rendering theological evaluation inappropriate.25
While earlier HSGT made the claim to ground its discussion of ethics in the Lutheran teaching of
justification by grace through faith, now the document slips into a way of speaking that would
seem to disregard the radical proclamation that God justifies the ungodly. Instead this section of
HSGT speaks of flawed and imperfect human beings who experience brokenness, loneliness,
and loss yet who know that our efforts are still infused with Gods love and blessing for
ourselves, our neighbors, and the world (HSGT, 9). This sentimental language is hardly
adequate for the Holy Scriptures proclamation of human sin and Gods grace in Christ Jesus.
Tolerance is a poor substitute for absolution. The restoration of trust is not the same thing as the
redemption of our bodies and rescue from Gods judgment.
In keeping with the documents overall orientation toward a particular form of realized
eschatology, HSGT sets Gods rule in the present world in contrast with His rule in the coming
kingdom by citing Pauls description of the groaning of creation in Romans 8: 22-23. Yet the
Apostles words in Romans 8 make little sense if they are divorced from the first chapter of his
epistle. In Romans 1 Paul writes of Gods wrath being revealed from heaven against all
unrighteousness precisely in the arena of creation, where the truth of God is exchanged for a lie
and human beings worship the creature rather than the Creator. It is in this exchange of the truth
for the lie that another exchange is executed. Paul writes: For this reason God gave them up to
dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature;
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for
one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due
penalty for their error (Romans 1: 26-27).26 Richard Hays comments:
Paul singles out homosexual intercourse for special attention because he regards it as
providing a particularly graphic image of the way in which human fallenness distorts
Gods created order. God the Creator made man and woman for each other, to cleave
together, to be fruitful and multiply. When human beings exchange these created roles

25

For a critique of this language by a Lutheran pastor who is also a research psychologist, see Merton P. Strommen,
The Church & Homosexuality: A Middle Ground (Minneapolis: Kirk House Publishers, 2001), 57-76.
26
For a very thorough treatment of the use of this pericope in the current debate on homosexuality, see Armin
Wenz, The Contemporary Debate on Homosexual Clergy: A Theological Discussion in the Formerly Lutheran
State Churches in Germany, trans. Holger Sonntag (Saint Louis: LCMS World Relief and Human Care, 2006), 3-34.
Also see Gerhard Forde, The Normative Character of Scripture for Matters of Faith and Life in Light of Romans
1:16-32 Word & World (Summer 1994): 305-314; Jonathan F. Grothe, The Justification of the Ungodly: An
Interpretation of Romans, Volume I (Privately published in Canada, 2006), 84-101; and John T. Pless, Using and
Misusing Luther on Homosexuality Lutheran Forum (Winter 2004): 24-30.

for homosexual intercourse, they embody the spiritual condition of those who have
exchanged the truth about God for a lie.27
Romans 8:22-23 disconnected from Romans 1:18-32 is used as something of a proof text for
making a sexual ethic that is elastic and flexible. HSGT states: Therefore, we believe that the
way we order our lives in matters of human sexuality is important to faithful living, but not
central to determining our salvation. We are to be realistic and merciful with respect to our
physical and emotional realities, not striving for angelic perfection as if our salvation were at
stake (HSGT, 9). With these lines, HSGT is setting the stage for making the argument that New
Testament scholar Robert Gagnon has identified as
the non-essential issue argument: since matters of sexuality do not constitute the major theme
of Scripture, Christians may freely adopt differing ethical evaluations of homosexual activity.28
In buttressing this argument, HSGT wrongly enlists Luthers teaching on the two kingdoms (or
the two realms). The introduction of this teaching is misplaced at this juncture as it is construed
in such a way to make space for a more permissive sexual ethic. Oswald Bayer suggests that
Luthers treatment of the three estates29 is actually a more accurate starting point than the two
kingdoms for understanding Luthers ethic.30 This is so, Bayer argues, because the three estate
framework is Luthers hermeneutic of primeval history. It demonstrates that Gods Word has
instituted estates or places in life that are fundamental and universal for human existence. This
instituting word of the Creator establishes marriage as a lifelong, monogamous union between

27

Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics
(San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 388. Also see Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 111
and Thomas Oden, The Classic Christian Exegesis on Romans 1:22-28 in Staying the Course: Supporting the
Churchs Position on Homosexuality, edited by Maxie D. Dunnam and H. Newton Maloney (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 2003), 85-96.
28
Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes Theology Matters
(November/December 2001), 4. Also see Gagnons The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) as this book provides a comprehensive treatment of relevant biblical texts which
are largely ignored in HSGT. Also see Excursus: Homosexuality in Gregory J. Lockwood, Concordia
Commentary: I Corinthians (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 204-209.
29
The three estates in Luther are the three institutions established by God, namely, the church, marriage (the
household), and civil government (see Luthers Works, Vol. 37: Confession Concerning Christs Supper
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], 364. Hereafter, references to the American Edition of Luthers Works,
published by Fortress Press and Concordia Publishing House [various dates], are abbreviated as AE, followed by
volume number: page number[s] [e.g., AE 37:364].) In the Large Catechism, Luther speaks of the different fathers
to whom honor is commanded (fathers of blood or households, fathers of a nation, and spiritual fathers (First Part
[Ten Commandments]:158, KW, 408). The two realms or kingdoms doctrine is Luthers shorthand for Gods twofold rule of both the church and the world. The church is his spiritual kingdom, and the world is the secular or civil
kingdom. For example, the Augsburg Confession says, Christs kingdom is spiritual, that is, it is the hearts
knowledge of God, fear of God, faith in God, and the beginning of eternal righteousness and eternal life. At the
same time, it permits us to make outward use of legitimate political ordinances of whatever nation in which we live,
just as it permits us to make use of medicine or architecture or food, drink, and air (16:2, KW 231), The teaching of
the three estates might best be understood as presupposed by Luthers exposition of the two kingdoms, for it is the
one God who is active in instituting and upholding life in both the worldly and spiritual realm. See also Oswald
Bayer, Martin Luthers Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, translated by Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 120-153.
30
Oswald Bayer, Nature and Institution: Luthers Doctrine of the Three Estates in Freedom in Response-Lutheran
Ethics: Sources and Controversies trans. Jeffrey Cayzer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 94. Bayer adds
that The two kingdoms doctrine and the doctrine of the three estates should not be opposed (95).

man and woman which is not open to any cultural redefinition that violates this creational
given.31
Yet at this juncture in HSGT, the teaching of the two kingdoms is invoked to give reason,
imagination, the social and physical sciences, cultural understandings, and the creative arts as
items that might aid in the churchs deliberations on questions of sexual morality (HSGT, 10).
Here HSGT is suggesting that, perhaps, contemporary scientific research might alter traditional
readings of Scripture on homosexuality. From the standpoint of theological ethics, however, it is
irrelevant whether homosexuality is a result of a genetic order, environment, or personal choice,
since Christians recognize that all of creation after the fall is subject to bondage, disorder, and
death. Robert Jenson wisely observes:
We need not here resolve the question of whether there are such things as 'sensual
orientations' and if so how they are acquired. What must anyway be clear is that
'homosexuality,' if it exists and whatever it is, cannot be attributed to creation; those who
practice forms of homoerotic sensuality and attribute this to 'homosexuality' cannot refer
to the characteristic as 'the way God created me,' if 'create' has anything like its biblical
sense. No more in this context than in any other do we discover God's creative intent by
examining the empirical situation; I may indeed have to blame God for the empirically
present in me that contradicts his known intent, but this is an occasion for unbelief, not a
believer's justification of the evil.32
One may not appeal to God made me this way as a justification for sexual sin any more than
he or she could invoke this for any other sinful inclination or behavior.
5. The Language of Trust and Relationship
The definitions of sexuality given in HSGT are largely shaped by the vocabulary of
contemporary social and psychological sciences with eclectic references to God. Throughout
HSGT, the language of trust predominates (as we have already noted). This is especially the
case in Section III Trust and Human Sexuality (HSGT, 10-15). After asserting that Sexuality
especially involves the powers or capacities to form deep and lasting bonds, to give and receive
pleasure, and to conceive and bear children (HSGT, 10), the document proceeds to assert that
Sexuality consists of a rich and diverse combination of relational, emotional, and physical
interactions and possibilities (HSGT, 11). The potency of this combination is recognized as a
gift that is open to abuse through unrestrained desires for self-gratification, coercion, and
irresponsibility with damaging consequences. Trust is seen as the necessary ingredient to
safeguard the appropriate expression of sexuality within the human community.

31

Note Luther in On Marriage Matters (1530): Now we have taught so often that we should do nothing unless we
have the express approval of Gods word; God himself has nothing to do with us, nor we with him, except through
his word, which is the only means by which we recognize his will, and according to which we have to govern our
actions. Whoever has a god but not his word has no god, for the true God has included our life, being, estate, office,
speech, action or inaction, suffering, and everything in his word and shown us by example that we must not and
shall not seek or know anything apart from his word, even of God himself, for apart from his word he does not wish
to be understood, sought, or found through our invention or imagining (AE 46:276).
32
Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume II: The Works of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),
93.

10

The discussion of social trust references the place of conscience: Social trust is grounded in the
practice of mutual respect for the dignity of all people and their consciences. Strong communities
ensure social trust when they provide social support for disagreement and dissent, and nurture
the values of mutual respect and regard for the opinions of others (HSGT, 13). With these
words HSGT puts in place a significant plank in the platform that it will seek to build for the
application of the bound conscience as a means of establishing a churchly community capable
of living together with diverse opinions on sexual morality in general and homosexuality
specifically (see section 7 below).
The ever strong and present focus on qualitative characteristics of human relationships and the
ascendancy of trust (and by default the capacity for human trustworthiness), become key
elements in a revised sexual ethic. Here the warning of Gilbert Meilaender is particularly
relevant: In a world in which the languages of love and consent have gradually come to trump
all other moral language, we do well to remind ourselves at the outset that marriage, the first of
all institutions, is not simply about love in general. It is about the creation of man and woman as
different yet made to be true to each other; it is about being fruitful, begetting and rearing
children. This pours content and structure into our understanding of sexual love, and it takes
seriously the bodys character within nature and history.33
With this shift away from an ethic marked by attentiveness to the character of the body in nature
and history to the relational language of social trust, the churchs task is changed. This is a
change that is noted and celebrated in HSGT:
As this church and its members engage the changes and challenges of contemporary
society related to human sexuality, careful thought must be given to which changes
enhance and which erode social trust. The development of social trust must be a central
concern for Christians who seek the good of the neighbor in pursuit of justice and the
common good. This church must be a leader in refocusing attention on practices and
attitudes that build social trust. Likewise, it must contribute to the development of
responsible economic and social policies and practices that shape the expression of
sexuality within social life (HSGT, 13).
Here the church appears to be envisioned as an institution for social change and justice, taking on
the responsibilities that properly belong to the realm of Gods left hand.34
The rhetoric of justice in relation to sexuality as noted in HSGT is a dominant theme. With this
accent on justice, there is a distancing from the body as the locale of human life. The
distinctiveness of the body as male or female and the requirements evoked by this reality given
in creation are diminished or ignored by giving primary place to discourse that is governed by
33

Gilbert Meilaender, The First of Institutions Pro Ecclesia (Fall 1997): 446. Also see Meilaenders Honoring
the Bios in Lutheran Bioethics Dialog: A Journal of Theology (Summer 2004): 118-124. Bernd Wannenwetsch
detects a kind docetism that would separate body and spirit in contemporary efforts to legitimize homosexuality.
See Bernd Wannenwetsch, Old DocetismNew Moralism? Questioning a New Direction in the Homosexuality
Debate Modern Theology (July 2000): 353-364. See also the CTCRs Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective
(Saint Louis: Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1981), especially 6-9 and 32-36.
34
For a more careful and thorough discussion of the churchs role in the left-hand kingdom, see Render Unto
Caesarand Unto God: A Lutheran View of Church and State (Saint Louis: Commission on Theology and Church
Relations, 1995), online at http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=360.

11

contemporary canons of egalitarianism. The words of Colin Gunton are a bracing corrective to
this line of ethical reasoning: Modern Christianity is so strongly inclined to lecture the world on
the merits of justice, that we are in danger of neglecting the weightier matters of the law: our
dealings with our bodies and our immediate neighbours.35
Arguing that sexual relationships may be among our most profoundly intimate, crucial, and
self-giving expressions of trust (HSGT, 13), the document advances its case that the church
should work toward the creation of trustworthy relationships and social structures that will
promote human dignity, protect from physical, emotional and spiritual harm, demonstrate
compassion, ensure accountability, provide for the welfare of the individual as well as the
common good of society, and value the protection afforded through the making of promises and
contractual agreements (see HSGT, 14). Through the advancement of these social virtues, it is
said that the neighbor is served. The claim is made that, We look to the Scriptures, to the
Lutheran Confessions, to the social and physical sciences, and to human reason, mercy, and
compassion in determining what trust looks like in relation to human sexuality (HSGT,
14).36 In formulating the above-mentioned list, the document makes no attempt to provide either
scriptural or confessional references to support its rather expansive claims.
Instead, trusting relationships are described as loving, life-giving, self-giving, nurturing,
truthful, faithful in word and deed (including sexual fidelity), committed/loyal, supportive,
hospitable, and a blessing to the larger community (HSGT, 14-15). These trusting relationships
appear to be inclusive of marriage but far broader than marriage in HSGT. But trusting
relationships lack the physicality of marriage which is a one flesh union of man and woman.
Oswald Bayers words serve as a corrective to this lacuna in HSGT: The importance of being
one flesh cannot be stressed too greatly. Marriage is not a kind of harnessing together of two
individuals; it is a third, new entity, that is, one flesh, one distinct and substantial whole. In this
conjoint being as one flesh lies the great mystery of Eph. 5:32.37 The adjectival descriptions
of marriage catalogued in HSGT may be applied to variety of human relationships; marriage is
distinguished, however, in that it is the one flesh union established by God in creation (Genesis
1-2). Pauls treatment of marriage in Ephesians 5 as an icon of the union of Christ with His bride,
the church, is anchored in creation. Just as Christ (the Bridegroom) is not interchangeable with
His church (the Bride) so male and female are not interchangeable.38
Intimacy, safety, and trust are underscored in HSGT as best protected within the context of
family understood in the sense of a household (HSGT, 21). Given the fundamental significance
of family in human community, Lutherans take great care to support whatever creates and
sustains strong families as a foundation and source of trust (HSGT, 21). Here HSGT uses
35

Colin Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 226.
By way of contrast note Bayers description of Luthers approach: Luther did not give in to the temptation to
search for clarity other than the reliable word of promise. Therefore, the world is not perspicuous to him, not
through and through calculable and disposable; his theology is unyielding to any historical-philosophical speculation
of unity. To the extent to which his theology contradicts such speculations for instance, the illusion of a constant
progress of world history it is sober, realistic, and full of concrete experience of the world. Thus, the much
invoked but frequently misunderstood worldliness of Luther is something thoroughly theological. For with this
worldliness the world is perceived as created by Gods reliable word and preserved through constant threats. This
perception is a forensic one a perception of judgment and grace. (See Creation as History, 259.)
37
Oswald Bayer, Freedom in Response, 160.
38
Here see The Creators Tapestry, 47-48. Also see John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of
the Body (Boston: Pauline Books, 2006).
36

12

relational language in such a way as to diminish or ignore the bond of biological connectivity.
Once again, Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions are used as decorative symbols, bases to
touch, while their dogmatic assertions are being set aside.
HSGT devotes sparse attention to divorce: This church recognizes that in some situations the
trust upon which marriage is built becomes so deeply damaged or is so deeply flawed that the
marriage itself must come to a legal end (HSGT, 17). Supportive pastoral care is suggested but
without meaningful reference to sin, confession and absolution. Nor is there the recognition in
HSGT that divorceeven when allowed on account of the hardness of the human heart (see
Matthew 19:3-9)is incompatible with the New Testaments picture of marriage. Rather, If
marriage is the New Testaments final symbol of eschatological redemption, then divorce cannot
be consonant with Gods redemptive will.39 Evangelical pastoral care of divorced persons will
be grounded in confession and absolution not in therapeutic affirmations.40
While highlighting the relational dimensions of life within various configurations of family,
HSGT gives only brief mention to the sexual bond between man and woman, the one flesh union
that engenders new life. Rather the document asserts, The critical issue with respect to the
family is not whether it has a conventional form but how it performs indispensable social tasks.
All families have the responsibility for the tasks of providing safety, shielding intimacy, and
developing trustworthy relationships (HSGT, 23). Regret is expressed for ways in which
historical Christian teachings on sexuality (i.e. pregnancy outside of marriage, homosexuality)
have made a negative impact on families. HSGT calls for greater understanding of sexual
orientation and gender identity (HSGT, 24) within the church and continuing evolution of
family law in the civil realm to enhance and protect intimacy, trust, and safety.
The relational theme is further developed in an extensive discussion on sexuality and trust in
relationships (HSGT, 27-33). In language that in large part seems to be more reflective of a
popular use of psychological and social sciences, the document discusses growth and
development with maturity and responsibility in view as questions of appropriate sexual
expression are addressed, including self understanding, gender and friendship, and cohabitation.
Non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual relationships of any kind are opposed on the grounds
that such relationships undermine the dignity and integrity of individuals because physical
intimacy is not accompanied by the growth of mutual self-knowledge (HSGT, 31). This section
is almost totally devoid of any theological reflection and framed instead with therapeutic
categories.
A final section of HSGT treats sexuality and social responsibility (HSGT, 33-36). Noting that
because individuals and families are set within larger social contexts, the church needs to address
patterns of abuse and discrimination for people with varied sexual orientation and gender
identity (HSGT, 33). Prostitution and pornography are rejected as detrimental. Efforts to halt
discrimination toward those afflicted with sexually transmitted disease are encouraged, as is sex
39

Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 366. Also see
Richard Hays, Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to J. Boswells Exegesis of Romans 1 Journal of
Religious Ethics (Spring 1986): 184-215.
40
See Divorce and Remarriage: An Exegetical Study (Saint Louis: Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1987), 37-39. Also note Oswald Bayer: The Church has to deal with
divorces without justifying them; what it must do in particular is to speak about sin and forgiveness (Freedom in
Response, 166).

13

education and the development of medical means of birth control (HSGT, 34-35). A strong
warning is given against inappropriate sexual behavior by professional church workers as such
activity is a violation of trust (HSGT, 35). Given the previous arguments advanced for a more
generous approach to sexual ethics, it seems not a little incongruent that HSGT now adopts a
rather assertive tone in admonishing church members on these issues.
6. The Place of Marriage
While the historic Christian teaching on marriage is acknowledged, the trajectory of the
document moves in the direction of emphasizing the relational dimensions of marriage at the
expense of marriage as a gendered and engendering estate of creation. HSGT defines marriage
as the covenant of mutual promises, commitment, and hope authorized legally by the state and
blessed by God (HSGT, 15). Citing Mark 10:6-9, HSGT notes The historic Christian tradition
and the Lutheran Confessions have recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a
woman (HSGT, 15). Yet the next two pages of HSGT reflect a discussion of marriage without a
reference to the gender of those who enter into this covenant. It is no surprise, therefore, that the
section on marriage ends with this summary:
Recognizing that this conclusion differs from the historic Christian tradition and the
Lutheran Confessions, some people, though not all, in this church and within the larger
Christian community, conclude that marriage is also an appropriate term to use in
describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same gender-couples entering into
lifelong, monogamous relationships. They believe that such accountable relationships
also provide the necessary foundation that supports trust and familial and community
thriving. Other contractual agreements, such as civil unions, also seek to provide some of
these protections and to hold those involved in such relationships accountable to one
another and to society. (HSGT, 18.)
Yet, without sexual differentiation there is no marriage. Carl Braatens words may appear harsh
but are nevertheless true: It is possible to blaspheme the Creator by degenerating the dignity and
goodness of human sexuality in its differentiation between male and female.41
Legal scholars Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson make the argument from
the perspective of jurisprudence that marriage is unique in that it entails a conjugal act that unites
a man and a woman organically and is distinct from every other contractual agreement, including
civil unions:
Because bodies are integral parts of the personal reality of human beings, only coitus can
truly unite persons organically and thus, maritally. Hence, although the state can grant
members of any household certain legal incidents, and should not prevent any from
making certain private legal arrangements, it cannot give same-sex unions what is truly
distinctive of marriagei.e., it cannot make them actually comprehensive, oriented by
nature to children, or bound by the moral claims specific to marriage.42
41

Carl Braaten, Eschatology and Ethics: Essays on the Theology and Ethics of the Kingdom of God (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1974), 165.
42
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, What is Marriage? Harvard Journal of Law and Public
Policy 34 (Winter 2010): 282.

14

In HSGT marriage might be seen as having an erotic or sensual dimension, but it would not
necessarily involve a conjugal act which unites male and female organically. George and his
colleagues argue that the conjugal view of marriage serves the common good in such a way
that the revisionist view cannot, precisely at the point of procreation. HSGT will not concede
this point.
Even though HSGT sees in the creation of Adam and Eve as male and female the revelation of
Gods creation of gendered beings with the capacity for companionship and procreation, this is
largely disconnected from a discussion of gender. The sturdy language of Gods institution of
marriage in the Holy Scriptures is absent in HSGT. Again we may contrast HSGT with Luther:
He has established it (marriage) before all others as the first of all institutions, and he created
man and woman differently (as is evident) not for indecency but to be true to each other, to be
fruitful, to beget children, and to nurture and bring them up to the glory of God.43 Marriage is a
divine institution that is lived out within the sphere of creation (kingdom of the left hand)
according to Gods purposes:
God established marriage as the relationship of mutual love between one man and one
woman (Genesis 2:18).
God locates the procreation of children within the bond of the one flesh union of
marriage (Genesis 1:28).
God uses marriage as a way of curbing and healing sinful lust (I Corinthians 7:2).44
These purposes are summarized by Luther in his lectures on Genesis:
Yet the true definition of marriage is this: marriage is the divine and lawful union of a
male and female in the hope of children, or at least to avoid the cause of fornication and
sin, to Gods glory. Its ultimate end is to obey God; to remedy sin; to call upon God; to
seek, love, and educate children to Gods glory; to live with ones spouse in the fear of
the Lord; and to bear the cross.45

43

LC I:207, KW, 414.

Note CTCR Human Sexuality, 10-32. See also Paul Althaus: Thus marriage is both Gods original intention for
his creation before all sin and the means he now uses to protect people against the destructive power of unrestrained
sexuality (The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert Schultz [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972], 85). Also
Albrecht Peters: As Gods ordinance, marriage is an estate that, as a widely observed one, permeates not only
Christendom but all of humanity. It connects all who have a human face; all people know it as a public estate and
protect it in manifold forms and different shapes by means of custom and law (Commentary on Luthers
Catechisms: Ten Commandments, trans. Holger Sonntag [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009], 247).
45
Martin Luther cited by Albrecht Peters, 257. See also Oswald Bayer, Luthers View of Marriage in Freedom in
Response, 169-182. Bayer says that Luther placed emphasis on the estate of marriage as the concept of estate was
intimately connected with both steadfastness and energy, products of the reliability of the Word that ensures that life
together will have the quality of endurance. The Word holds all the various facets of an active life together, its
beauty and peace as well as its crises and conflicts. The Word of God lends stability to marriage and brings about
the unconditional and permanent unity of one man and one woman (170).
44

15

The redefinition of marriage suggested by HSGT discounts the heart of Luthers definition. More
importantly, the document represents a radical departure from what God has instituted and it
opens the way for the church to bless what God condemns.46
7. Bound Conscience and Sexual Ethics
HSGT next proceeds to lay out a way for the ELCA to change its practice so as to allow for
churchly recognition and blessing of individuals in lifelong, monogamous, same-gender
relationships (HSGT, 18). HSGT acknowledges that consensus does not yet exist [in the
ELCA] concerning how to regard same-gender committed relationships after many years of
thoughtful, faithful study and conversation. We do not have agreement on whether this church
should honor these relationships and uplift, shelter, and protect them or precisely how it is
appropriate to do so (HSGT, 19). It is argued that this lack of consensus, however, should not
prevent pastoral care, which the document understands as inclusive of some form of blessing and
recognition for those who are in same gender relationships.
Without giving any biblical or confessional documentation HSGT asserts that in response to this
need and in the face of the impasse in failure to reach consensus, this church draws on the
foundational Lutheran understanding that the baptized are called to discern Gods love in the
service to the neighbor (HSGT, 19). In a crucial move HSGT does two things. First, it identifies
the question of same-gendered relationships as falling into the arena of ethics and church
practice, suggesting that this not an issue of doctrine which should divide the church. Second,
HSGT argues that committed Christians engaged in moral deliberation and discernment may
indeed arrive at conflicting conclusions. These varying conclusions could be protected by an
appeal to the bound conscience; thus, We further believe that this church on the basis of the
bound conscience, will include different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks
to live out its mission and ministry in the world (HSGT, 19). There is no hint in HSGT that the
failure to reach consensus in the ELCA on the morality of homosexual activity might lead the
church to retain the received catholic tradition.47
HSGT then goes on to outline four positions that different individuals in the ELCA hold with
conviction and integrity, each on the basis of conscience-bound belief:
Same-gendered sexual behavior is contrary to both biblical teaching and natural law.
Pastoral care is to call for repentance and to work toward a change of behavior and/or a
celibate lifestyle.
Acknowledgement that homosexuality, even when expressed through a lifelong
monogamous relationship, reflects a broken world not in keeping with Gods pattern for
creation. These relationships are recognized as being lived out with mutuality and care,
but they should not be given the status of marriage.

46

On the misapplication of blessing to homosexual unions, see Ephraim Radner, Blessing: A Scriptural and
Theological Reflection Pro Ecclesia (Winter 2010): 7-27. To bless is a resolutely public thing to do, because it is
at base a confessional thing to do that is bound to a particular claim about who God is and what God does (27).
47
Catholic tradition refers to the consistent teaching of Christianity on this issue since its very origin.

16

 Belief that the Scriptures do not address same-gender relationships as they are known in
the contemporary world. The community is best served when these relationships are held
to high standards of public accountability but these relationships are not equated with
marriage. They should receive the support of the community and may be blessed with
prayer.
Belief that the Scriptures do not speak to sexual orientation and committed relationships
as they are experienced today. These relationships should be held to the same standards
as heterosexual marriage and receive the same benefits of such marriages (HSGT, 20-21).
After outlining these positions currently present in the ELCA, the document repeats its plea that
a lack of consensus ought to make space for the bound conscience:
Although at this time this church lacks consensus on this matter, it encourages all people
to live out their faith in the local and global community with profound respect for the
conscience-bound belief of the neighbor. The church calls for mutual respect in
relationships and for guidance that seeks the good of each individual and of the
community. Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this
church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral
care, and mutual respect. (HSGT, 21.)
An explanation for the conceptuality of the bound conscience is supplied in note 26 of HSGT
(see Excursus, below, for a further discussion of bound conscience as the concept is used in
HSGT). This footnote is instructive as it sheds light on the way the terminology of conscience
is used in the document in at least three ways. First, the conscience is identified in connection
with moral responsibility as expressed in the first chapters of Romans: The Apostle Paul
testifies to conscience as the unconditional moral responsibility of the individual before God
(Romans 2:15-16). In the face of different conclusions about what constitutes responsible
actions, the concept of the conscience becomes pivotal (HSGT, 41). Second, both Paul in
Galatians and Luther at Worms are said to have taken a stand on the basis of conscience for the
sake of the Gospel. Third, when salvation is not at stake, Christians are free to give priority to the
well being of the neighbor and so protect the neighbors conscience as matters of diet or ritual
observance of holy days. Thus the footnote concludes: This social statement draws upon this
rich understanding of the role of conscience and calls upon this church, when in disagreement
concerning matters around which salvation is not at stake, including human sexuality, to bear one
anothers burdens (Galatians 6:2), honor conscience, and seek the wellbeing of the neighbor
(HSGT, 41).
While HSGT connects conscience with moral responsibility, it fails to attend to how the
conscience functions as the selfs internal court of judgment48 to use the words of Uwe
Schnelle. The conscience lacks an autonomous capacity to moral responsibility. For Paul,
conscience does not itself contain the basic knowledge of good and evil but rather a coknowledge, a knowledge-with, of norms that serve as the basis for making judgments that can be
either positive or negative.49
48

Uwe Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, translated by M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2009), 313.
49
Uwe Schnelle, 314.

17

It appears that the HSGTs appeal to conscience is at least in part anchored in a history of
interpretation that goes back to the claim of Karl Holl (1866-1926), a professor at the University
of Berlin and leader in the Luther Renaissance.50 Holl wrote, Luthers religion is a religion
of conscience in the most pronounced sense of the word, with all the urgency and personal
character belonging to it.51 This religion of the conscience was seen by Holl as evidence that
Luther was not a medieval but a modern man and therefore relevant to the world of the twentieth
century.
The application of bound conscience to the issue of homosexuality is deeply problematic from
a confessional Lutheran perspective. Classical Lutheran theology makes a distinction between
adiaphora, mandata, and damnabilia.52 Matters of adiaphora are not binding on conscience, but
Christian conscience is bound to keep what God has commanded and avoid what he prohibits.
HSGT quotes Luthers speech at Worms: Unless I am persuaded by the testimony of Scripture
and by clear reason.I am conquered by the Scripture passages I have adduced and my
conscience is captive to the words of God. I neither can nor desire to recant anything, when to do
so against conscience would be neither safe nor wholesome (HSGT, 41; see AE 32:112).
However, the document incorrectly attributes to Luther an understanding of conscience that is
autonomous and capable of functioning reliably apart from Gods Word. Randall Zachmann
rightly observes The conscience does not have the ability to judge the truth or falsehood of the
positions themselves; otherwise Luthers appeal at Worms to be further instructed would be
meaningless.53 He then concludes The conscience is a capacity for judging good and evil but
it is not in itself an infallible source for knowing what is good and what is evil. One can have a
true conscience only if one follows true teaching, not if one follows the feeling of the
conscience.54
HSGT assigns to the conscience an autonomy that it does not have in Luther. Conscience is
given a mastery over the Word of God. In this scenario amply illustrated by HSGT, individual
consciences are then bound by their own interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, so we are left
with a variety of options for moral action but no certainty. In contrast, Luther, in his 1525
lectures on Deuteronomy, asserts that God wants our conscience to be certain and sure that it is
pleasing to Him. This cannot be done if the conscience is led by its own feelings, but only if it

50

The Luther Renaissance is the title usually given to the reawakening of scholarly interest in Luther and his work
which took place in the period between the two wars in Germany. It is associated especially with Karl Holl. For a
helpful overview, see Thomas Brady, Jr. Luther Renaissance in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation,
Volume 2 (Dord-Manu), edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1996),
473-476.
51
Karl Holl, What Did Luther Understand by Religion? Edited by James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense,
translated by Fred W. Meuser and Walter R. Wietzke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 48. For a critique of Holl
and a further exploration of Luthers understanding of conscience see George Forell, Luther and Conscience in
Martin Luther: Theologian of the Church: Collected Essays edited by William R. Russell (Saint Paul: Luther
Seminary 1994), 57-65.
52
Oliver K. Olson, Adiaphora, Mandata, Damnabilia Lutheran Forum (Spring 2010): 22-25. Adiaphora are things
neither commanded nor forbidden by Gods Word. Mandata are things God commands. Damnabilia are things God
forbids and condemns.
53
Randall C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 23.
54
Zachmann, The Assurance of Faith, 28.

18

relies on the Word of God.55 Michael Baylor describes this regency of Scripture over
conscience in Luthers thinking:
Repeatedly at Worms Luther asserted that his conscience was captive to the Word of
God. But he did not say, and should not be interpreted as having intended to say, that
Scripture was captive to his conscience. In that Luthers defiance at the Diet of Worms
was based upon both evident reason and especially, the literal sense of Scripture as the
two objective and legitimate authorities with the power to bind and instruct his
conscience, he was not a subjectivist in religion. The subjective sense of certainty with
which he held his theological convictions did not function, either materially or formally,
as a criterion for the truth of these convictions. It acted rather, as the basis from which he
resisted the claims of what he refused to accept as a legitimate authorityany human
authority, especially popes and councils. Luther did not raise the conscience itself to the
status of such an authority, parallel to that of reason or Scripture, with its own power
even to share in or partly determine the content of faith.56
HSGT, however, gives wide berth to the function of conscience, neglecting its limitations and
unreliability.57 For Luther conscience is not bound to itself. Bound to itself, the conscience will
either be captivated by the terror of the laws accusations or driven by impulses toward selfjustification. The conscience is alternately accusing or excusing (see Romans 2:15-16).58 This
aspect of conscience is ignored in HSGT. HSGT seems to use interchangeably the bound
conscience and conscience-bound belief. In truth, only the conscience bound to the consoling
word of the Gospel is given certainty and peace in the forgiveness of sins. Conscience-bound
beliefs, on the other hand, bind us to our own opinions. No matter how deeply treasured these
convictions are, they provide no certainty. In elevating conscience-bound beliefs, HSGT
reveals a stridently anthropocentric position that is detrimental both for ethics and pastoral care.
Conscience-bound beliefs can be wrong, since the conscience is untrustworthy.59 It is, in the
words of Gerhard Forde, insatiable, fickle, and arbitrary. It does not represent Gods presence
within us, it represents his absence, that we are left to ourselves. Conscience can unpredictably
55

AE 9:123.
Michael G. Baylor, Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1977), 267-268.
57
Here also note the extensive discussion of conscience by Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics, Volume I:
Foundations, edited by William Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 298-358. In his discussion of the
autonomous conscience, Thielicke observes that conscience cannot be synthesized with Gods revelation (332);
Also see Mary Jane Haemig: The conscience is not sacred and thus exempt from sin: it is part of the created
world and thus as subject to sin as any other part of the world. The view that the conscience is sacred can lead to
the elevation of human conscience above the law and thus to an antinomianism inimical to the Lutheran
Confessions. See Lutheran Thinking on Church-State Issues in Church & State: Lutheran Perspectives, edited by
John R. Stumme and Robert W. Tuttle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 15. HSGT errs precisely in this way as it
elevates the conscience over Gods Word.
58
Also note Werner Elert: Conscience must be held to be the same as the conflicting thoughts which accuse and
excuse each.The conscience is no information center to furnish ready answers to the question, What must I do?
Conscience is no specific quality but a continuous process, the process of conflicting thoughts which accuse and
excuse each other.See The Christian Ethos, trans. Carl J. Schindler (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), 33
59
The Bible is replete with warnings about unwarranted trust in conscience alone: e.g., Num. 15:39; Judg. 17:6;
21:25; Ps 31:1-2; Prov 3:7; 12:15; 14:12; 16:2; 16:25; 21:2; 30:12; Is. 5:20-21; Jer. 13:10; 17:5-9. The NT generally
uses the term conscience (sunei,dhsij) with the understanding that it has been shaped by the Word of God (e.g.,
because Paul refuses to tamper with Gods Word and speaks it openly, he commends such conduct to the conscience
of the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 4:2).
56

19

make mockery of presumed freedom and emancipation.60 Given the unpredictability of the
conscience as it is driven to excuse and accuse, it is hardly a trustworthy anchor for belief or
action. Ones conscience-bound beliefs may include an array of opinions and activities from theft
to racism, from bestiality to child sacrifice. The subjectivity of conscience is indeed a slender
thread to hold a responsible morality in place.
Where conscience-bound beliefs govern rather than the Word of God, we are led to what Luther
sees as an identifying mark of the theologian of glory. Such a theologian, Luther asserts, calls
evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.61
Theologians of glory, as Forde explains, think one can see through the created world and the
acts of God to the invisible realm of glory beyond it.62 The argument advanced for the bound
conscience, unfortunately, is such an attempt to see through the created world, the bodies God
has created, and the revelation of God in Christ. In its attempt to accommodate diverse teachings
on homosexuality, HSGT also accommodates a false optimism about the human condition
instead of the call of the Cross to death and resurrection with Christ.
Over and against HSGT, confessional Lutheranism bears witness to the truth of the Holy
Scriptures teaching on Gods creation of humanity, namely, as male and female designed by
Him to live within the fidelity of the one flesh union He has established in marriagea union,
that His creative Word makes life giving. The Christian church has no authority to bless what
God condemns. Brevard Childs writes:
The recent attempt of some theologians to find a biblical opening, if not warrant, for the
practice of homosexuality stands in striking disharmony with the Old Testaments
understanding of the relation of male and female. The theological issue goes far beyond
the citing of occasional texts which condemn the practice (Lev.20:13). Nor is the heart of
the issue touched by the historicists claim that Israel was obsessed with the propagation
of children to assure the nations survival. Rather, it turns on the divine structuring of
human life in the form of male and female with the potential of greatest joy or deepest
grief. The Old Testament continually witnesses to the distortion of Gods intention for
humanity in heterosexual aberrations (Judg. 20; 2 Samuel 13). Similarly the Old
60

Gerhard Forde, Eleventh Locus: The Christian Life in Christian Dogmatics, Volume 2, edited by Carl Braaten
and Robert Jenson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 417. Also see Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Works, Volume 6: Ethics, edited by Clifford Green, translated by Reinhard Krauss et al (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2005). Bonhoeffer writes Men of conscience fend off all alone the superior power of predicaments that
demand decision. But the dimensions of the conflicts in which they have to choose, counseled by and supported by
nothing but their own conscience, tear them to pieces. The countless respectable and seductive disguises and masks
in which evil approaches them make their conscience anxious and unsure until they finally content themselves with
an assuaged conscience instead of a good conscience, that is, until they deceive their own consciences in order not to
despair. Those whose sole support is their conscience can never grasp that a bad conscience can be stronger and
healthier than one that is deceived (79).
61
Martin Luther, Heidelberg Theses in AE 31:53.
62
On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luthers Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1997), 12. Robert Kolb and Charles Arand remind us that only Christs cross enables
his people to confront and describe themselves and the world around them honestly and forthrightly. The theology
of the cross liberates Gods children from having to construct falsehoods in order for life to make sense. See The
Genius of Luthers Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 2007), 147. Gene Edward Vieth has a basic discussion of the theology of the cross in The
Spirituality of the Cross (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 5760.

20

Testament views homosexuality as a distortion of creation which falls into the shadows
outside of blessing.63
In spite of many thoughtful and critical voices within the ELCA,64 HSGT became the theological
foundation for a devastating departure from Holy Scriptures in regard to the blessing of same sex
couples and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. In an essay written in 1936, Lutheran
theologian Hermann Sasse observed that Where man can no longer bear the truth, he cannot live
without the lie.65 Sasse then goes on to describe forms that the lie takes on: the pious lie, the
edifying lie, the dogmatic lie, and finally the institutional lie. We must frankly conclude that each
of these aspects of the lie finds its way into HSGT. Most pertinent for our response is the fact
that what Sasse called the dogmatic liethe notion that our age has greater understanding than
our ancestors and so we have reached a doctrinal maturity that enables us to modify dogma
has now been made concrete in the ELCA by means of the institutional lie as that church body
has officially adopted a heretical position on human sexuality. This is not merely a case of
misapplied ethics but a dogmatic decision that is, in fact, schismatic. The evaluation of Wolfhart
Pannenberg rings true: If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to
treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual
unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no
longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took
this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.66 The ELCA has now
taken this step, embodying apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints.67

63

Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 194.
Also OT scholar Hans Walter Wolff: Homosexuality is a failure to recognize the differences of the sexes, and with
it the basic way of arriving at a fruitful life through the over-coming of self-love. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology
of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 176. The fact that homosexual intercourse lacks the
capacity for procreation is not a biological irrelevancy in the OT understanding of the divine blessing pronounced on
Adam and Eve in creation.
64
See, for example, Marianne Howard Yoder and Larry Yoder, Natural Law and the ELCA in Natural Law: A
Lutheran Reappraisal, 157-177.
65
Hermann Sasse, Union and Confession in The Lonely Way- Volume I (1927-1939), edited by Matthew C.
Harrison (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2001), 266.
66
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Revelation and Homosexual Experience Christianity Today (November 11, 1996): 37. It
should not be assumed that this judgment implies that all congregations or all individuals affiliated with the ELCA
are outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. That is not Pannenbergs point nor is the opinion of the
CTCR. It is the case, however, that to stand against the unequivocal witness of Scripture is contrary to the faith of
the church catholic.
Appended to this document are four resolutions adopted by the LCMS at its 2010
Convention which express grave, love-based concern for the ELCA and its congregations and church workers in
view of the sexuality decisions made at the 2009 Assembly of the ELCA: 2010 Res. 3-01A To Commend ILC and
Task Force Statements as Responses to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions: 2010 Res. 3-02A To
Support Confessional Lutheranism at Home and Abroad; 2010 Res. 3-03 To Cooperate in Externals with
Theological Integrity; and 2010 Res. 3-05 To Request a Thorough Response to the ELCA Social Statement
Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. Noteworthy is the first Resolved of 2010 Res. 3-02A: That the LCMS
earnestly pray for her brothers and sisters in the ELCA, including those who have departed from this biblical and
Christian understanding [of human sexuality], asking that the ELCA would reconsidereven nowits actions.
67
Note the words of Richard J. Niebanck: Of the blessed union of Christ and the church, the marriage of one man
and one woman is the matchless icon. The willful departure from this norm is an offense for which heresy is too
mild a designation. Marriage at the Crossroads Lutheran Forum (Summer 2005), 37. See also Mark Chavez,
Biblical Authority in the ELCA Today Concordia Theological Quarterly (January/April, 2010): 105-121.

21

Conclusion
HSGT is deeply problematic from a number of perspectives. It operates with a hermeneutic that
renders the Scriptures unclear and uncertain concerning the fundamental nature of human
existence, i.e., as male and female created by the Triune God in His image to live in communion
with Him by faith and in love for the neighbor within the structures of His creation. Biblical and
catholic teaching on Gods design for sexuality and the essential place of marriage as an estate of
His creation are rendered optional. While HSGT claims to work with primary Lutheran
categories such as justification by grace through faith, the distinction of law and Gospel, the
duality of faith and love, and vocation, they are distorted to serve an ideological purpose that can
in no way be identified with confessional Lutheranism nor catholic Christianity. While the
language of gift is dominant in HSGT, it misses the point that gift also implies a certain
givenness.68 Strong and passionate voices within the ELCA69 have warned their church body
for over two decades of the dangerous path which has now reached its conclusion in HSGT. It is
with profound grief that the LCMS can do nothing other than conclude that HSGT represents a
different gospel (Gal. 1:6).70
In attempting to distance the ELCA from a past where it is assumed that matters of sexuality
were dealt with repressively and legalistically, with embarrassment and shame, HSGT is replete
with the rhetoric of openness and a refusal to speak in any way that might imply judgment and
the call to repentance. In what is intended to be compassionate and pastoral, there is a deep
cruelty in HSGT for it is incapable of finally speaking either law or Gospel. Failing to do this,
tolerance and affirmation of freedom for choice within the bounds of a community of love and
trust take the place of absolution. Our deepest disappointment with HSGT is not only that it is a
revised ethic that only mimics our decadent culture but that it undercuts the churchs proper
work of absolving sinners in the name of Jesus Christ.
A challenge before confessional Lutheran churches is to continue to bear clear witness to the
biblical and creedal truth which has been seriously distorted in HSGT. In catechetical instruction,
youth gatherings, Bible classes, publications, and other forums, our laity needs to be taught what
the Scriptures tell us regarding Gods design for sexuality in contrast to alternative teachings
present in the larger culture and, as we have observed, even within other churches that identify
themselves as Christian and Lutheran.
68

See Oswald Bayer, The Ethics of Gift Lutheran Quarterly (Winter 2010): 447-468. Bayer points out that the
theme of ethics is not merely What should I do? but What has been given to me? (447). HSGT redefines the gift
of sexuality apart from the Word of the Giver.
69
A few examples of these voices will suffice: Robert Benne, Reinventing Sexual Ethics in Reasonable Ethics
(Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 259-265; Carl Braaten, Because of Christ: Memoirs of a Lutheran
Theologian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 164-178; Gerhard Forde, Law and Sexual Behavior Lutheran
Quarterly (Spring 1995): 3-22; Richard J. Niebanck, Whats at Stake? Lutheran Forum (Winter 2003): 12-16;
William Lazareth, ELCA Lutherans and Luther on Heterosexual Marriage Lutheran Forum (Autumn 1994): 235268; James Arne Nestingen, The Lutheran Reformation and Homosexual Practice in Faithful Conversations:
Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, edited by James Childs (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 41-58.
70
The Task Force on Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions provided an initial LCMS response to
the 2009 ELCA sexuality decisions. 2010 Res. 3-01A commended the task force statement for affirming the
continuing relevance of the biblical teaching that every homosexual act violates the will of our Creator, that
there is forgiveness in Christ for all sin including homosexual sin, that a biblical response to homosexuality requires
both compassion toward the sinner and condemnation of sin, and that scriptural commands are kind words by
which God seeks our wholeness.

22

The catechesis provided by culture in this matter is pervasive and influential, and when it is
wrapped within theological language it is hardly surprising that it can be deceptive and
misleading to well-meaning Christians who desire to show compassion to all people. Proper
Christian compassion for and patience with sinners must not be confused with generic notions of
acceptance, affirmation, and tolerance.71
It is imperative that confessional Lutheran church bodies continue to develop theologically
responsible ways to provide authentic pastoral care to individuals whose lives have been marred
by sexual sin of whatever kind. Our unflinching rejection of current attempts to provide
theological justification for homosexual behavior is not born out of a Pharisaical stance of selfrighteousness or a squeamish homophobia but from a commitment to Gods truth revealed in
Holy Scripture. We are equally committed to showing appropriate compassion to those who
struggle with this sin. Sin is never to be addressed with hateful attitudes, words, or actions. The
truth of Gods law must be spoken with clarity but it must be articulated with kindness and care
for those to whom it is addressed. Bigotry and disdain will only deepen the resistance of those
who are secure in their sin. Ministry to people who are enticed with same gender attractions or
who have committed homosexual sins will require patient and consistent speaking of both Gods
law and Gospel, even as congregations support them in the struggle to live as sons and daughters
of the Father in the freedom that comes only in the forgiveness of sins. Given the climate of our
culture this is a daunting work. Yet we have the promise that the Word of the Lord will not
return to Him empty. Clothed with the deep compassion of Christ for sinners, we will seek to
undertake this work with both truth and mercy.72
Gods Word calls each of us to repent and to turn away from any and all sin. Confidence before
God can never be based on our own actions, for we can never justify ourselves. Instead, our sole
comfort is found in the fact that Jesus Christ has taken all our sin into Himself, for He was
delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Romans 4:25). Because of
Christs cross and His rising from the dead, the Lord forgives our iniquity and remembers our sin
no more (Jeremiah 31:34).

71

The Scriptural posture toward sin is not tolerance, but rather patience. Such patience has repentance, forgiveness,
and salvation from divine judgment as its explicit goal. 2 Peter 3:9 describes God as patient (makroqumei/) toward
you, not wanting anyone to perish, but all to come to repentance. (See also Romans 2:45). Merciful patience,
rooted in Gods essential character (Exodus 34:6, Septuagint: makro,qumoj), should also characterize the approach of
pastors and congregations toward those who struggle with homosexual sins.
72
Helpful theological reflection and pastoral guidance is offered by Tom Eckstein, Bearing Their Burden (Galatians
6:1-2): Speaking the Truth in Love to People Burdened by Homosexuality (n.p.: Lulu, 2010); James Arne Nestingen,
Ministry to the Sexually Conflicted in The Jasper Commission (Delhi, New York, 2009), 15-25; and Phillip Max
Johnson, The Spiritual Nature and Destiny of the Human Body: A Pastoral Perspective on Human Sexuality in
Christian Sexuality: Normative & Pastoral Perspectives edited by Russell E. Saltzman (Minneapolis: Kirk House
Publishers, 2003), 73-88. Also see A Plan for Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families (The Task Force on
Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families, The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, 1999).

23

Excursus: Brief Analysis of Timothy J. Wengerts Reflections on the Bound Conscience in

Lutheran Theology
Given the central place that the conceptuality of the bound conscience plays in the overall
structure and argument set forth in HSGT, Dr. Timothy J. Wengert, Ministerium of Pennsylvania
Professor of the History of Christianity at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and
a member of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality authored an interpretative and
apologetic essay of ten pages, Reflections on the Bound Conscience in Lutheran Theology
(hereafter Wengert).73 This document deserves some comment as it helps to inform readers as to
how the terminology of bound conscience is used in HSGT.
Wengert begins his essay by noting that Luther used the language of conscience in at least two
ways: On the one hand, he sometimes simply accepts the medieval scholastic understanding of
the conscience as a faculty of the soul that can distinguish right from wrong and truth from
falsehood. However, both Luther and Melanchthon also use the term more generally to apply to
the entire person as we stand before God and view ourselves in the light of Gods Word,
understood as Law and Gospel (Wengert, 1).
Citing Luthers words to Cardinal Cajetan that he does not want to be compelled to affirm
something contrary to my conscience, for I believe without the slightest doubt that this is the
meaning of Scripture (Wengert, 2), 74 Wengert argues that Luther appeals to his conscience as a
way of avoiding having to choose between the Holy Scripture and obedience to the Pope. On the
basis of Luthers words, Wengert says, the bound conscience always appeals for comfort from
those who speak Gods Word of promise and hope (Wengert, 2). However, Luther says nothing
of a bound conscience in this setting. He does make a plea that church officials do not force
him to act against his conscience, which Luther sees as instructed by the Holy Scriptures.
Three years later, before Emperor Charles V, Luther would make his confession at the Diet of
Worms: I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word
of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to act against
conscience.75 Here Luther is asserting not an autonomous conscience but a conscience that is
subject to the Holy Scriptures. From Luthers statement at Worms, however, Wengert draws the
erroneous conclusion: This means that we cannot simply assert one interpretation of Scripture
over another but must always respect the conscience of others with whom we may disagree. If
Luther had no choice but to appeal to the conscience bound to the gospel in his case before
Rome, so much more must we respect lesser cases of bound consciences regarding matters of
law and ethics! (Wengert, 2).
At least three points need to be made in response to this argument. First, Wengert does not
adequately grasp the fact that Luthers conscience is bound to the Word of God, the Holy
Scriptures. This is helpfully put by Bernhard Lohse: Luther no longer saw the conscience as
subject to the decision of the church, with the result that we may no longer act contrary to our
73

This essay can be found online at

http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/What%20We%20Believe/Social%20Issues/In%20Process/Human%20Sexuality/
Wengert_on_Bound_Conscience.pdf.
74
From Luthers Proceedings at Augsburg 1518, AE 31:275.
75
AE 36:112.

24

own conscience. On the other hand, however, Luther saw the conscience as basically being under
the authority of Holy Scripture. We therefore have no basis for interpreting Luther as teaching
that the conscience is autonomous.76 Second, the conscience bound to the Holy Scriptures
cannot but confess what the Holy Scriptures teach. One example of this is that of Luther
confessing the Lords Supper against Zwinglis denial at Marburg. Luther was certainly not
prepared to respect Zwinglis interpretation as an alternative even though, no doubt, Zwinglis
conscience was bound to it. Similarly, Erasmus was conscience bound to defend the freedom of
the human will but Luther could not let this Gospel-denying teaching go unchallenged. Third,
Wengert implies that the dispute over homosexuality is merely a matter of law and ethics. Seen
from the clear teaching of Holy Scriptures, the issue of homosexuality cannot be divorced from
the doctrine of the Triune God and His work in creation, redemption, and sanctification. The
biblical doctrine of man created in the image of God as male and female is at stake here.
Wengert offers other examples from Luthers own biography in an attempt to show that Luther
utilized the category of bound conscience to allow for flexibility in theological and moral
issues. Presented as examples of such flexibility are Luthers pastoral instinct in allowing the
laity to receive only Christs body in the Sacrament after Karlstadts premature, over-zealous
liturgical reform in 1521 in Wittenberg and the Visitation Articles of 1528.
The case of Luthers advice regarding the bigamy of Philip of Hesse is likewise used by Wengert
as an example of Luther acting against the churchs understanding of marriage for the sake of a
weak Christian. Philip of Hesse was married to Christina, the daughter of Duke George of
Albertine Saxony in 1523. Philip was nineteen years old at the time of the marriage. Although he
claimed that "he never had any love or desire for her on account of her form, fragrance, and
manner,"77 he fathered seven children with Christina. Through Martin Bucer, Philip contacted
Luther and sought his endorsement in taking another wife. In what Luther thought was a private,
pastoral piece of advice, Luther reluctantly concurred that a second marriage would be better
than a scandalous divorce or open fornication. Philip publicized Luther's pastoral advice to
defend his bigamy.
It seems that Luther sees Philip caught between two wrongsdivorce and bigamy. In light of the
fact that God permitted the patriarchs to have multiple wives, Luther concludes that less damage
would be done if Philip took a second wife secretly without divorcing Christina. Luther's advice
to Philip would be in keeping with a comment he made in 1520 in The Babylonian Captivity of
the Church: "As to divorce, it is still a question for debate whether it is allowable. For my part I
so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to it; but whether it is allowable I do not
venture to decide."78
Luther thought that his advice was given under "the seal of the confession" and was the best that
could be offered under the circumstances. In defending his advice he recalled the words of one of
76

Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work, translated by Robert C. Schultz
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 59. Here one might also note Luthers discussion of conscience in his 1522
postil on The Gospel for the Festival of Epiphany in AE 52: 244-286. Luther argues that Christian faith cannot
exist alongside of such allegiance or duty-bound conscience (244), as though the consciences of the Magi were
bound to follow Herods decree that they report to him the location of the infant Jesus.
77
Theodore Tappert (editor and translator), Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel (Vancouver, British Columbia:
Regent College Press, 1955), 288.
78
AE 36: 105.

25

his teachers: "Alas, these cases are so confused and desperate that neither wisdom, law, nor
reason can be of any help. They must be committed to God's mercy."79 Luther did not see his
attempt at making the best of a bad situation as establishing a precedent for pastoral or churchly
practice in cases of marriage. Much less should it be invoked as an endorsement of homosexual
unions. This and other examples drawn from Luther by Wengert are cases of strategic pastoral
care that are open to criticism. They are certainly not evidence that Luther departs from the Holy
Scripture to institute something that is contrary to the revealed will of God.80
Luther recognized that a conscience bound to false teaching is, in fact, endangered and in need of
correction for the sake of its salvation. Wengert misses the mark when he says that concern for
the bound conscience is not simply a matter of toleration for different points but more
profoundly realizing that the neighbors conscience is bound to a totally different, perhaps even
incorrect, understanding of the matter and that to uproot that understanding would shake the
neighbors faith and trust in Gods mercy and forgiveness (Wengert, 6).
Wengert also takes up a discussion of Christian freedom in relationship to adiaphora. His
treatment of Article X of the Formula of Concord is misleading as it would extend the category
of adiaphora to embrace sexual practices that Gods Word has not instituted and, in fact, would
encourage practices that God condemns.81
Finally, Wengert concludes his document with a discussion of enthusiasm. He cites the
Smalcald Articles III:8.3-9 where Luther asserts that the devil tempts and entices people away
from the external Word to their own imaginations of who God is and what He desires. In a
strange turn, Wengert suggests that those who insist on the clarity of Scripture on matters about
which Christian fervently disagree might be enthusiasts. For Luther, however, it was rather the
Word of God that governs everything in Christs holy church and thus guards against
enthusiasm. Conscience may be bound by false interpretations of the Word of God. The pastoral
response can never be merely tolerance or respect when Gods truth and the salvation of those
ensnared in sin is at stake.
Adopted by the CTCR
April 27, 2012

79

Tappert, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, 290.

Here see Reinhard Slenczka, When the Church Ceases to be Church in The Banff Commission, edited by K.
Glen Johnson (Delhi, New York: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 2008), 37-50. Slenckza writes The church
is in no way a democracy but she is a Christocracy. Spiritual authority is not a political authority, otherwise this
would be a state church or a church state. In his disputation on the authority of councils Luther puts it this way:
Christ has authority and His word, neither majority nor minority. Therefore we must distinguish truly, eagerly, and
intelligently if Christ said so or not. If he said so, we have to accept this; if not we must refuse it (Disputatio de
protestate councilii, WA 39, I, 194, 10-13) (43).
81
See Olson, Adiaphora, Mandata, Damnabilia, 22-25. Also see the extensive treatment by Albert Collver III,
According to Nature, Adiaphora, and Ordination in Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal, 249-266.
80

26

2010 Convention Proceedings

pp. 113-114
To Commend ILC and Task Force Statements as Responses
to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions
RESOLUTION 3-01A
Overtures 3-1112 (CW, p. 168)
WHEREAS, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) at its August 2009 Churchwide
Assembly in Minneapolis resolved to recognize publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender
relationships as morally acceptable and to authorize the ordination into pastoral ministry of individuals who are
living in such relationships; and
WHEREAS, The Bible plainly forbids all same-gender genital sexual activity as contrary to the will of God
and contrary to nature (e.g., Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:2627; 1 Cor. 6:910); and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that God created man and woman for one another and that, according to
His blessing and design, they may be united in marriage and become one flesh in the sexual union which also may
result in the procreation of children (Gen. 1:2628; Gen. 2:1825); and
WHEREAS, Our Lord warns us about the danger of false teaching (e.g., Matt. 7:1517); and
WHEREAS, The ELCA actions have received wide publicity in our nations press, and many may think that
all Lutherans share these beliefs; and
WHEREAS, Many Lutherans and other Christians throughout the world have expressed dismay over and
disagreement with the ELCA resolutions and the fact that they depart from Holy Scripture and 2000 years of
Christian tradition; and
WHEREAS, The International Lutheran Council (ILC), comprising 34 member churches, unanimously
adopted the statement Same-Gender Relationships and the Church in opposition to the claims of various Lutheran
church bodies that sexually active, same-gender relationships are an acceptable way of life for Christians (2010
Convention Workbook [CW], p. 66); and
WHEREAS, The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod has been asked by individuals, organizations, congregations, national church bodies, and others to declare its understanding of these issues; and
WHEREAS, It would be unloving and uncaring for the LCMS to take no action with respect to the heterodox
actions of the ELCA; and
WHEREAS, Holy Scripture calls us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15; see also 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 Peter
1:22; 2 John 1:1) and such love involves heart-felt concern, tenderness, and humility (1 Peter 3:8; see also Eph. 4:2;
Col. 3:12); and
WHEREAS, President Gerald B. Kieschnick has on several occasions spoken publicly in opposition to the
decisions regarding homosexuality by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly (e.g., 2010 CW, pp. 1213) and also formed
the Task Force on Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions; and
WHEREAS, The task force unanimously adopted a statement, which the President endorsed and published,
responding to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly actions (March 15, 2010see 2010 CW, pp.1418); and
WHEREAS, LCMS leaders have discussed the task force document with ELCA leaders; and
WHEREAS, This issue impacts the Gospel itself. A church bodys acceptance of homosexual activity
promotes a false security about behavior and conduct which God has forbidden and from which He longs to redeem
us. As such, it leads to a false gospel: to self-justification rather than that justification for repentant sinners which

2010 Convention Proceedings

pp. 113-114
God has promised to all who trust in His forgiving mercy through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord (Theological Implications, 2010 CW, p. 17); therefore be it
Resolved, That the LCMS join with the ILC in declaring our resolve to approach those with homosexual
inclinations with the deepest possible Christian love and pastoral concern, in whatever situation they may be living
(Same-Gender Relationships, 2010 CW, p. 66); and be it further
Resolved, That the LCMS recognize that Our Lords intentional outreach to those who were marginalized
and excluded during His earthly ministry is a reminder that the Scriptural judgments against homosexual behavior
must not become the cause for hatred, violence, or an unwillingness to extend the Gospels promises of forgiveness
and reconciliation to the homosexual or any person caught in sins traps (Theological implications,
2010 CW, p. 15); and be it further
Resolved, That the LCMS affirm that love for the neighbor includes not only that we accept and welcome
(Luke 15:12) our neighbor as a fellow human creature for whom Christ has died and risen, but also that we speak
the truth of Gods Word to our neighbor; and be it further
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention commend the statement of the ILC, Same-Gender Relationships and the Church, for study and reference; and be it further
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention commend the Presidents task force statement, Theological
Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions, for study and reference; and be it finally
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention affirm that

[W]here the Bible speaks clearly regarding matters of human values, conduct, or behavior, such
teachings may not be denied or qualified, but must have continuing relevance in every era of the
Church (Theological Implications, 2010 CW, p. 15);
[T]he LCMS believes and teaches that same-gender genital sexual activityin every situation
violates the will of our Creator and must be recognized as sin (Theological Implications, 2010
CW, p. 15);
Though we affirm the demands of Gods Law without reservation, we Christians confess that the
sins of the world have been forgiven through Christs suffering and death on the cross (SameGender Relationships, 2010 CW, p. 66);
Loving, compassionate recognition of the deep pain and personal struggles that same-sex
inclinations produce in many individuals, families, and congregations may not be neglected in the
name of moral purity (Theological Implications, 2010 CW, p. 15); and
The healing voice of JesusSacred Scriptureseeks to lead us into the richness of the life God
intends for us. Prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and promiscuity of any sort are kind
words, warning us against behavior that would diminish or destroy human wholeness
(Theological Implications, 2010 CW, p. 15).

Action: Adopted (6)

(After Res. 3-01A was formally introduced, debate was ended immediately and the resolution was adopted as presented
[Yes: 1,133; No: 35].)

2010 Convention Proceeding

p.114
To Support Confessional Lutheranism at Home and Abroad
RESOLUTION 3-02A
Overture 3-14 (CW, p. 169)
WHEREAS, The decisions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) at its August 2009
Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis regarding homosexual relationships are contrary to Scripture and 2000 years
of Christian teaching and to confessional Lutheranism in particular; and
WHEREAS, Many congregations and individuals have withdrawn from or are considering withdrawal from
affiliation with or membership in the ELCA and consider their decision necessitated by conscience, Holy Scripture,
and right reason; and
WHEREAS, For the sake of good order and in furtherance of the clear proclamation of the Gospel of Christ,
many of these same congregations and individuals have organized themselves into groups such as Word Alone,
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), Lutheran CORE, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Individual and congregational contacts from the ELCA with LCMS congregations and officials
have increased significantly since August 2009; and
WHEREAS, This decision by the ELCA has also grieved Lutherans and upset inter-church relations among
confessional Lutheran church bodies outside the United States; and
WHEREAS, While this state of disruption and uncertainty among confessional Lutherans threatens to hinder
the proclamation of the Gospel, it also calls us to confess our faith anew; and
WHEREAS, The LCMS, while not encouraging discord in the ELCA, nevertheless cannot turn away from
those who dissent from the ELCA, lest we deny our own convictions; and
WHEREAS, The LCMS has been encouraged to provide leadership and support to emerging and formative
Lutheran church bodies; therefore be it
Resolved, That the LCMS earnestly pray for her brothers and sisters in the ELCA, including those who
have departed from this biblical and Christian understanding, asking that the ELCA would reconsidereven now
its actions; and be it further
Resolved, That the LCMS provide encouragement to other Lutheran church bodies as they strive to remain
faithful to confessional Lutheranism; and be it further
Resolved, That the LCMS commend groups such as Word Alone, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for
Christ (LCMC), Lutheran CORE, and others for their courage and faithfulness in opposing the ELCAs recent
decision; and be it further
Resolved, That the LCMS commend efforts such as the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
(CTCR)-sponsored Confessional Leadership Conference (June 2010) which gathered Lutheran leaders from around
the world for the purpose of promoting confessional Lutheranism; and be it further
Resolved, That the CTCR be requested to continue to develop plans for confessional leadership (cf. 2007
Res. 3-03) by sponsoring an international model theological conference on confessional leadership in the 21st
century; and be it finally
Resolved, That the LCMS through the Office of the President and the CTCR continue to explore ways
together with the ILC to bring together Lutherans for the purpose of promoting confessional Lutheranism throughout
the world.
Action: Adopted (6)
(Debate was quickly ended and the resolution was adopted as presented [Yes: 1,093; No: 61].)

2010 Convention Proceeding

pp. 115-116

To Cooperate in Externals with Theological Integrity

RESOLUTION 3-03
Overtures 3-0102, 3-0508 (CW, pp. 165167)
WHEREAS, The 2001, 2004, and 2007 conventions of the Synod asked that various aspects of cooperative
working arrangements with the ELCA be evaluated by the Praesidium with results and recommendations reported to
the subsequent conventions; and
WHEREAS, In 2010 President Kieschnick formed a task force to address the theological implications of the
decisions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly regarding homosexuality; and
WHEREAS, The task force produced a document titled Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA
Decisions (2010 Convention Workbook [CW], pp. 1418); and
WHEREAS, Theological Implications refers to the Synods longstanding position: Our Synod should
clearly recognize that, in cases of necessary work on the local, national, or international level, where the faith and
confession of the church are not compromised, and where it appears essential that the churches of various
denominations should cooperate or at least not work at cross purposes, our churches ought to cooperate willingly to
the extent that the Word of God and conscience will allow (1965 Commission on Theology and Church Relations
(CTCR) Report, Theology of Fellowship [ p. 43], officially adopted by the Synod in 1967 [Res. 2-13]); and
WHEREAS, The Synods position stated above clearly sets forth two fundamental principles:
1.
2.

the church cannot compromise its faith and confession; and

there are circumstances in which churches ought to cooperate to the extent that the Word of
God and conscience will allow;

and
WHEREAS, The task force statement goes on to offer the following analysis and guidance:
In light of these two principles, it has been the longstanding practice of confessional Lutheran
churches to distinguish between joint participation by churches and church workers in Word and
Sacrament ministry (altar and pulpit fellowship or communio in sacris) and cooperation between
churches in matters of physical need (cooperatio in externis). To maintain such a distinction
carefully and conscientiously prevents both compromise of the teachings of the Christian faith and
disregard of human needs which can be addressed more effectively by groups working together
than by individuals or churches working on their own.
Because of doctrinal differences, the LCMS is not now nor has it ever been able to be in a
relationship of altar and pulpit fellowship with the ELCA. Nevertheless, we have engaged in many
cooperative activities with the ELCA, nationally and locally, in order to meet physical needs.
These cooperative activities, however, are threatened by the sexuality decisions of the ELCA,
because, in some cases, the ELCAs new affirmation of same-gender relationships may contradict
understandings or goals that have enabled cooperative activities in the past. As one example, the
CTCR already in 2006 addressed the decision of an adoption agency to treat same-gender
relationships as equal to marriage for adoptive purposes. The opinion states: On the basis of the
clear teaching of Scripture regarding homosexual behavior and about Gods will and design for
marriage and the family as foundational units for society as a whole, it is the express opinion of
the CTCR that a policy of placing adopted or foster children into homosexual contexts would
stand in opposition to the official doctrinal position of the LCMS.
In areas where we currently have working arrangements with ELCA congregations and entities,
the status of those working relationships is dependent on policies and actions taken by the various

2010 Convention Proceeding

pp. 115-116

entities from national to local levels. We do not believe the ELCAs recent sexuality decisions
should necessarily or summarily end our work together in these agencies. However, we hope and
expect that the leadership of such entities will respect the theological position of the Synod
(including its position on same-gender sexual activity) and avoid any policies or decisions which
would require us to cease our support and involvement in their activities.
We cannot dictate the exact direction(s) various cooperative relationships will take in the future,
primarily because the nature of agreements between ELCA and LCMS congregations and entities
varies on a case-by-case basis. Frank and serious discussion on this issue needs to continue on
various levels so that convictions and beliefs are not compromised and that worthy projects,
activities, and relationships between our church and others may continue wherever possible. We
urge LCMS participants in such cases to make decisions about whether to continue involvement
on the basis of the principles we have discussed. We also suggest the following questions for
consideration in making these decisions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Is the purpose of the joint work fully consistent with the positions, policies, and
objectives of the Synod?
Do cooperative efforts imply doctrinal unity with the ELCA or endorsement of ELCA
positions on same-sex relationships or other matters of disagreement with the LCMS?
Does the joint agency or organization distinguish itself as an entity from the churches that
support it?
Are all the policies and programs of the organization consonant with the doctrinal
position of the LCMS?
Do the individuals who lead the organization openly support and encourage efforts,
positions, or policies which compromise the theological stance of the Synod?

We urge LCMS participants to answer such questions as these and to make decisions about
whether to continue involvement on the basis of the principles we have discussed [2010 CW, p.
16].
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the task force be thanked and commended for its work on identifying practical implications
of the 2009 ELCA decisions on human sexuality; and be it further
Resolved, That, in keeping with the basic principles set forth in the task force statement, cooperation in
externals with other churches, including the ELCA, continue with theological integrity; and be it further
Resolved, That we give thanks to God for the opportunity to give witness to Gods care for all people
through such cooperative work; and be it further
Resolved, That the CTCR, in consultation with the Praesidium and other entities and individuals as needed,
develop more in-depth theological criteria for assessing cooperative endeavors, determining what would necessitate
termination of such cooperative efforts; and be it finally
Resolved, That the Praesidium, in consultation with the CTCR, provide an assessment of the current state
of cooperation in externals and a full report of criteria for on-going assessment of the same by July 13, 2011.
Action: Adopted (9)
(During initial discussion during Session 6, an amendment deleted the words the next convention at the end of the final
resolve and replaced them with the words July 13, 2011 [Yes: 783; No: 359]. After further discussion, a motion was introduced
to consider Ov. 3-05 (CW, p. 166) as a substitute resolution. The assembly declined to consider the substitute [Yes: 495; No:
653]. During continued discussion during Session 7, John Nunes, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lutheran World
Relief spoke in support of the resolution. An amendment to delete the words and conscience at the end of the fifth whereas

2010 Convention Proceeding

pp. 115-116

paragraph was ruled out of order by the chair, the words in question being a part of a quotation from the Synods position. An
amendment was proposed to add a final resolve that the President of the Synod, the Praesidium, and the Council of Presidents
develop a plan to sever those joint actions with the ELCA to present to the next Synod convention if the ELCA does not listen to
the pleading of their brothers and sisters from the Word of God. During extended discussion of the proposed amendment, an
amendment to the amendment was proposed to insert the word contingency before the word plan. This change was agreed to
by the maker of the amendment as a friendly amendment. The motion to amend was not carried [Yes: 415; No: 723]. A motion to
strike the word Lutheran in the second resolve was accepted by the floor committee as a friendly amendment. A motion to
replace the date July 13, 2011 from an earlier amendment with September 1, 2011 was ruled an improper motion unless
changed to a motion to reconsider the amendment made earlier. The assembly was asked whether it wished to reconsider the
earlier amendment and declined [Yes: 400; No: 708]. When discussion was continued in Session 9, debate was ended and Res. 303 was adopted as amended [Yes: 961; No: 175].)

2010 Convention Proceeding

p. 117
To Request a Thorough Response to the
ELCA Social Statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust
RESOLUTION 3-05
Overtures 03-1112 (CW, p. 168)
WHEREAS, The August 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly adopted the social statement Human Sexuality:
Gift and Trust; and
WHEREAS, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust suggests a concept, namely the bound conscience, as a
distinctly Lutheran principle of theology; and
WHEREAS, The concept of bound conscience was central to the rationale of the 2009 ELCA Assembly
actions recognizing publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships as morally acceptable
and authorizing the ordination into pastoral ministry of individuals who are living in such relationships; and
WHEREAS, Concerns have been expressed that the ELCAs concept of bound conscience encourages
erosion of Christian moral teaching and guidance; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, in consultation with the faculties of our
seminaries, develop a thorough, biblical, and confessional analysis of and response to Human Sexuality: Gift and
Trust with particular attention to the concept of bound conscience.
Action: Adopted (13)
(Res. 3-05 was adopted as presented, after brief discussion [Yes: 934; No: 18].)